Recommended Posts

I didn't oversimplify anything, you said reintegration efforts were pointless.

You didn't oversimply anything? Don't lie to yourself. Tell me where I said that reintegration efforts were pointless.

At his Senate confirmation hearing to be secretary of housing and urban development, Romney denounced the Federal Housing Administration, saying that it has “built a high-income white noose basically around these inner cities, and the poor and disadvantaged, both black and white, are pretty much left in the inner city.”

Believe it or not, everyone (including minorities) fled cities if they had money. That's because of the reasons I had listed above. Some people don't just understand that, much like Coleman Young.

In fact, in this thread, I'm the only person who is even pushing for them. But god forbid we bring back the blacks we got away from back in to our neighborhoods! Who wants to be around darker peoples?!

In ALL suburbs, there's a small percentage of minorities. Anyone can move anywhere if they can afford it. And they do. Unless, of course, you're implying that all black people are poor, of which the problem is on you.

The main reason people stay in the "ghetto", like much of Detroit, is that they can't afford to. Higher taxes compound that, even though they'll never see a cent of it in terms of taxes.

Local authorities, with federal encouragement and consent, segregated public housing and [snip]

Oh wow, citing from a far-left magazine! That really backs up your argument.

You can choose to use plantation in a particular context if you want, but to me it as a racist connotation and especially in the way that you said it. Too late to cover it up now.

I'm not covering it up, I'm using fairly common vernacular (again, see elsewhere on HAIF) which your liberal goggles interpreted as racist. I can't help it if you don't understand me.

Again, even if redlining was the cause of social unrest and demographic shifts in the 1960s, it doesn't really hold up today. Remember what we said about post-1960s deteriorated neighborhoods? That was ignored, as it blew a massive hole in your theory. Instead of trying to fight it, you went straight for the "If all else fails, accuse the other party of being racist" card because you had no other choice.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You didn't oversimply anything? Don't lie to yourself. Tell me where I said that reintegration efforts were pointless.

Believe it or not, everyone (including minorities) fled cities if they had money. That's because of the reasons I had listed above. Some people don't just understand that, much like Coleman Young.

In ALL suburbs, there's a small percentage of minorities. Anyone can move anywhere if they can afford it. And they do. Unless, of course, you're implying that all black people are poor, of which the problem is on you.

The main reason people stay in the "ghetto", like much of Detroit, is that they can't afford to. Higher taxes compound that, even though they'll never see a cent of it in terms of taxes.

Oh wow, citing from a far-left magazine! That really backs up your argument.

I'm not covering it up, I'm using fairly common vernacular (again, see elsewhere on HAIF) which your liberal goggles interpreted as racist. I can't help it if you don't understand me.

Again, even if redlining was the cause of social unrest and demographic shifts in the 1960s, it doesn't really hold up today. Remember what we said about post-1960s deteriorated neighborhoods? That was ignored, as it blew a massive hole in your theory. Instead of trying to fight it, you went straight for the "If all else fails, accuse the other party of being racist" card because you had no other choice.

Man, they must have loved you back when you were on the debate team.

About what I expected out of you, discrediting what actually happened with your own circumstantial views. Saying redlining doesn't hold up today is total ignorance. It shaped what we are today. And the fact that HUD has zero power to reintegrate since George Romney was in charge has largely left it the way it is. I am the one person here pushing for reintegration. What's wrong with requiring new developments to have low income housing? Or do you not want low income people living where you live? Also the effects of redlining have had a huge effect on schools as well.

For 30 years minorities could not live in certain places because they were denied loans. I think you are forgetting that.

Yes there have been neighborhoods that went bad after the 60's, but that is nothing compared to the bad neighorhoods that were created by redlining, and de facto kept the way they were because of Nixon firing George Romney.

Read the article (which is fact based, nothing biased in there, typical FoxNews response out of you), read the report. If not nothing of what you say has any substance in this argument.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

What's wrong with requiring new developments to have low income housing? Or do you not want low income people living where you live?

Requiring new developments to have low income housing would be basically subsidizing luxury apartments on the taxpayer's dime. The reason why low-income housing has such a bad rep is that they tend to be huge crime problems, and that has been a problem again and again.

Read the article (which is fact based, nothing biased in there, typical FoxNews response out of you), read the report.

Lol. You actually think Fox news is the only biased news source out there?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Requiring new developments to have low income housing would be basically subsidizing luxury apartments on the taxpayer's dime. The reason why low-income housing has such a bad rep is that they tend to be huge crime problems, and that has been a problem again and again.

Lol. You actually think Fox news is the only biased news source out there?

1. If federal funds are being given to cities, they should have to do what the federal government wants. HUD should have powers very soon, hopefully they enforce them. Also, you're talking about projects, I'm saying a certain percentage should be low income, not 100%. And again, if you read anything I put up it gives a lot of reasonong why projects were made and where. Hint, redlining was a huge cause. Also, putting some low income housing would be the right thing to do. But who cares about that right, it's all about $$$?

2. It is the most biased news source out there at this moment.

3. That's funny, because you've basically ignored everything I've put in here, mostly quotes from Nixon and Romney, notes from national archives, and other facts of what actually happened, and putting your own spin on things.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If federal funds are being given to cities, they should have to do what the federal government wants.

It may come as a surprise to you, but taxpayers fund the feds. Therefore, it makes sense to not let the federal government have only their way of deciding where the money goes.

2. It is the most biased news source out there at this moment.

Yeah right. Of course Fox News gets a lot of poorly-researched information, but bashing Fox News is just another common liberal hobby.

That's funny, because you've basically ignored everything I've put in here, mostly quotes from Nixon and Romney, notes from national archives, and other facts of what actually happened, and putting your own spin on things.

Want me to assemble a list of things you've ignored from others on this thread? It will take a bit of time, so let me know in advance. I've got more important things to work on.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hahaha...I guess MSNBC is "fair and balanced", then? I spend time watching both Fox and MSNBC so I can get different perspectives on issues but one thing I've noticed is that at least Fox consistantly includes liberals in their debates, even if the hosts don't agree with them. I rarely see conservatives included in the opinion shows on MSNBC which, in my mind, makes MSNBC a far more biased source.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Local authorities, with federal encouragement and consent, segregated public housing and then, as whites left the projects for all-white suburbs, placed new projects only in black neighborhoods to ensure continued segregation. Federal urban-renewal funds were used to bulldoze black neighborhoods to make space available for white residential and business expansion; resulting displacements further overcrowded the ghettos. Suburbs adopted exclusionary zoning laws requiring large lot sizes and banning multiunit developments, often with the barely disguised purpose of ensuring that no African Americans could afford to become neighbors.

Federal and local officials in the 1950s and 1960s routed highways through black communities to force residents to move to ghettos farther from white residences and businesses. The executive director of the American Association of State Highway Officials, himself deeply involved in the congressional design of the program, later acknowledged that “some city officials expressed the view in the mid-1950s that the urban interstates would give them a good opportunity to get rid of the local ‘______town.’”

In Michigan, the city of Hamtramck was typical. An overwhelmingly Polish American enclave surrounded by Detroit, Hamtramck had a small number of black residents, for whom the city’s 1959 master plan intended a “program of population loss.” With federal funds, the city began in 1962 to demolish its black residential neighborhoods to create vacant land for a Chrysler plant expansion. Federal funds were next used to raze more (mostly black) homes for construction of an expressway to serve the plant. No replacement housing was provided, and because white neighborhoods were closed to them, the displaced blacks were forced deeper into Detroit’s ghettos. A federal appeals court concluded that HUD officials “must have known of the discriminatory practices which pervaded the private [Hamtramck] housing market and the indications of overt prejudice among some of the persons involved in carrying out the urban renewal projects of the City.”

At his Senate confirmation hearing to be secretary of housing and urban development, Romney denounced the Federal Housing Administration, saying that it has “built a high-income white noose basically around these inner cities, and the poor and disadvantaged, both black and white, are pretty much left in the inner city.”

The problem with reading a lot of history without having experienced much is that you tend to live in the past. The US is a far different place now than it was in the mid-twentieth century. If you would venture out of your bubble you would find that most neighborhoods in Houston are mixed to one degree or another. The determining factor is not race, it's money.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

1. If federal funds are being given to cities, they should have to do what the federal government wants. HUD should have powers very soon, hopefully they enforce them. Also, you're talking about projects, I'm saying a certain percentage should be low income, not 100%. And again, if you read anything I put up it gives a lot of reasonong why projects were made and where. Hint, redlining was a huge cause. Also, putting some low income housing would be the right thing to do. But who cares about that right, it's all about $$$?

2. It is the most biased news source out there at this moment.

3. That's funny, because you've basically ignored everything I've put in here, mostly quotes from Nixon and Romney, notes from national archives, and other facts of what actually happened, and putting your own spin on things.

The HUD has a long and colorful history of scandal and corruption in both Democratic and Republican administrations. This is where you are experiencing a disconnect with reality. The mission statement might sound good, but the practice is fraught with politics, turf wars, and corruption. Given the HUD secretary more power isn't going to change that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hahaha...I guess MSNBC is "fair and balanced", then? I spend time watching both Fox and MSNBC so I can get different perspectives on issues but one thing I've noticed is that at least Fox consistantly includes liberals in their debates, even if the hosts don't agree with them. I rarely see conservatives included in the opinion shows on MSNBC which, in my mind, makes MSNBC a far more biased source.

I watch neither, I stick to BBC and Al Jazeera.

The HUD has a long and colorful history of scandal and corruption in both Democratic and Republican administrations. This is where you are experiencing a disconnect with reality. The mission statement might sound good, but the practice is fraught with politics, turf wars, and corruption. Given the HUD secretary more power isn't going to change that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The problem with reading a lot of history without having experienced much is that you tend to live in the past. The US is a far different place now than it was in the mid-twentieth century. If you would venture out of your bubble you would find that most neighborhoods in Houston are mixed to one degree or another. The determining factor is not race, it's money.

I've got a map on the wall in my office of Brooklyn that shows a giant red cluster right in the middle, where African Americans make up over 80% of the population, even though they're only 25% of the city overall, and even though on the street, New York feels like a very integrated city.

Nikole Hannah

I think a good way to visualize it in the city is when you ride the subway or the bus. When you get on at certain parts, the bus is very integrated. And then as you go to certain neighborhoods, all the white people get off, and then it's only black people left on the bus.

Nancy Updike

How much of the current level of segregation in New York and other cities is due to discrimination, compared to other factors like poverty, that's being studied and debated. What's clear is that as the country has become less segregated overall, there are still large stubborn pockets of racial and economic segregation in major US cities. And that's true nearly half a century after we passed a critical piece of civil rights legislation, the Fair Housing Act.

But that can make it seem like segregation now is all about poverty rather than race, and it's not. The average African-American household making $75,000 a year or more, that family lives in a poorer neighborhood than the average white family making less than $40,000 a year. That is, a black family making twice as much money as a white family probably still lives in a poorer neighborhood. That's according to a study from Brown University. Racial segregation and not just people's income is key to understanding where people live and why, though I'm not sure we're facing the reality of that today.

The point of the Fair Housing Act is not that every black person in America has to have a white neighbor, and anything short of that means they're being discriminated against, but look at where we are 45 years later. Some states have no housing testers at all. They're basically on the honor system. In the places that do have it, most of the testing is done not by the government, but by advocacy organizations like the one L.B. works for. Which for New York City means its 8.3 million people are relying for most of their testing for compliance with the Fair Housing Act on a nonprofit organization and a group of actors hired part-time.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

According to that logic, Lincoln should've never tried to end slavery. Sometimes the feds have to do the right thing even if people are too dumb/stubborn to realize what that is.

Didn't say the federal government never has anything good at all. But since clearly you're a supporter of government, so you fully trusted them to go into Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s. Right? Government knows best!

2. FoxNews is a joke. The fact you even attempt to defend it says a lot.

I didn't attempt to defend it, I just pointed out a fact.

You've ignored the entire premise, despite facts being thrown at you from all directions. Can't talk to someone whose ears are totally closed.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I've got a map on the wall in my office of Brooklyn that shows a giant red cluster right in the middle, where African Americans make up over 80% of the population, even though they're only 25% of the city overall, and even though on the street, New York feels like a very integrated city.

Would that be Bedford-Stuyvesant, home to a large number of black artists, actors, musicians and politicians who could easily live anywhere but choose to live there?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Didn't say the federal government never has anything good at all. But since clearly you're a supporter of government, so you fully trusted them to go into Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s. Right? Government knows best!

I didn't attempt to defend it, I just pointed out a fact.

Are we talking about yourself again?

So now, we get to the point where having lost most of your ground, bombarding the opponents with all manners of links, and even resorting to name-calling, you declare yourself as superior. Way to go!

1. I didn't say I agree with everything government does but I do agree with what George Romney was doing.

2. I've given links that have material evidence behind them. If you choose to fully ignore them it's impossible to even debate the subject with you.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

eral agencies subsidized white suburban development by guaranteeing loans to mass-production builders who created places like Levittown on Long Island, Lakewood in California, and similar uncounted suburbs in metropolitan areas nationwide. Homes were inexpensive and theoretically affordable to black and white workers alike, especially to returning World War II veterans. But the Federal Housing and Veterans administrations encouraged and usually required these builders to refuse sales to African Americans. Whites who were permitted to buy benefited from ensuing decades of equity appreciation; this wealth helped finance college for their children and was later bequeathed to them. Black families, prohibited by federal policy from buying into these initially low-priced suburbs, lost out.